2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant was spent for other purposes with the resolution of the meeting of occupants’ representatives prior to being elected as the chairperson of the meeting of occupants and the consent of a majority of occupants; (b) the Defendant was spent for defect diagnosis expenses, not for the Defendant’s private use; (c) the Defendant was spent for defect diagnosis expenses; (d) the Defendant’s intent of illegal acquisition was weak; and (d

In addition to the above sentencing conditions, even if comprehensive consideration of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion. There is no change in special circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too uneasible

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.